Economist says salmon closure cost 1,800 their jobs, not 23,000

Tuesday

Apr 6, 2010 at 12:01 AMApr 7, 2010 at 12:47 PM

STOCKTON - Job losses in the salmon fishing industry are not as severe as fishers claim, says a University of the Pacific economist who angered farmers last year with similar findings about unemployment in the south San Joaquin Valley.

Alex Breitler

STOCKTON - Job losses in the salmon fishing industry are not as severe as fisherman claim, says a University of the Pacific economist who angered farmers last year with similar findings about unemployment in the south San Joaquin Valley.

Jeff Michael, director of the university's Business Forecasting Center, has not been afraid to take on either side in the rhetoric-rich conflict over the Delta and the state's water supply.

"I'm amazed at some of the numbers that can be thrown around about jobs and employment on all kinds of issues and just be treated as if they're fact," Michael said Monday.

Farmers and Valley politicians repeatedly said last year that unemployment rates in some areas were close to 40 percent because less water had been pumped out of the Delta to protect the diminutive Delta smelt.

One University of California, Davis, study initially found the drought could dry up 60,000 to 80,000 jobs.

At the same time, salmon fishers, who want more water flowing through the Delta and out to the ocean, claimed 23,000 jobs were lost because commercial and recreational salmon fishing were virtually shut down.

Michael was sharply criticized for questioning the farm estimates. He said he tackled the salmon study to avoid a perception of bias.

"We felt like it was important to bring more information to the public discourse," he said Monday. "If we don't treat their (fishers') claims the same way, then I feel like we are taking sides."

Like the farmers last year, fishing advocates weren't thrilled to hear that Michael had put their public statements to the test.

"He is trying to have a war between economists," said Dick Pool, a salmon fishing gear distributor based in Concord. "He can keep publishing it. But we're going to keep using the same data."

The estimate of 23,000 lost jobs came from Florida-based Southwick Associates in a study funded by the American Sportfishing Association. That figure has been cited by members of Congress and, just last week, in a New York Times article.

Pacific did not receive outside funding for its report.

Pool called Southwick Associates the "top outdoor economist in the country," but Michael said the study erred in extrapolating heavy job losses in seafood retail, wholesale and distribution.

People don't walk out of the grocery store with money in their pocket because salmon was not available. "They just buy something else," Michael said. "Nobody has lost their job in a grocery store because of the salmon closure."

He estimates 1,823 jobs were lost during the two-year salmon closure - a far cry from 23,000.

As for agriculture, Michael has argued that the high unemployment can be blamed mostly on the foreclosure crisis.

Of the roughly 8,500 jobs that he estimates were lost because of water shortages, only 2,000 could be blamed on the smelt. The rest were because of the natural three-year drought.

Of course, the number of jobs lost doesn't mean much when your name is among them.

"The numbers are large. They're significant," Michael said. "Neither one of them is crushing the California economy, ... but that isn't to say there aren't real economic losses at stake here. It touches a lot of people."

Zeke Grader, director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said he hadn't seen Michael's study, which was released late Friday.

"I'm not saying it's valid or not. I haven't seen it and can't really comment on it," Grader said. "But I'd like to see how it's done. It could be both (studies) are right," depending on how job losses are measured.